Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a Gram Panchayat member’s disqualification for continuing to reside in and use government land encroached upon by her husband and father-in-law. Section 14(1)(j-3) was not confined to the person who first encroached: continued shared occupation creates the conflict of interest the provision seeks to prevent. The Court overruled Sagar Pandurang Dhundare’s narrower interpretation.
Issues
- Whether a Panchayat member continuing to occupy government property encroached upon by family members incurs disqualification even if she did not make the original encroachment.
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1)(j-3), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958The disqualification covers a person who shares an encroached property by residing there and continuing its occupation, not merely the original encroacher. (¶¶ 2, 24, 28–29)
- Section 53, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958The Panchayat’s statutory responsibility to remove public-land encroachments and the continuing nature of the prohibited occupation informed the purposive interpretation of the disqualification. (¶¶ 22, 26–29)
Held
- The concurrent findings that the appellant’s husband and father-in-law had encroached on government land and had not vacated despite notices were supported by the record and warranted no interference. The appellant was using that land. (¶¶ 1, 3)
- Members’ duty to protect public property and secure removal of encroachments is incompatible with their own continuing occupation of encroached property. Limiting disqualification to the first encroacher would defeat the provision’s purpose and permit the same encroachment to continue through others. (¶ 26–29)
- A person sharing encroached property by residing there in continued occupation falls within section 14(1)(j-3). The Court approved the emphasis on continued encroachment, including by an original encroacher’s legal heirs, and overruled Sagar Pandurang Dhundare as incorrectly stating the law. (¶¶ 24, 28–29)
- The appellant’s disqualification was sustained and her appeal dismissed without costs. (¶ 29–30)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; disqualification sustained. Sagar Pandurang Dhundare overruled.